On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 8:20 AM Eric Timmons <etimmons@mit.edu> wrote:
Attila Lendvai <attila.lendvai@gmail.com> writes:
what i would do:
- one branch that holds the bleeding edge. i'd call it main, just to go with the flow. - branches for ASDF versions (down to the desired resolution, probably major.minor), so that you can easily cherry pick or backport fixes into them. a new version-branch is forked off of main whenever a release happens. - optionally a stable *tag* as an indirection to the latest release. it communicates which specific git revision is it that the maintainer considers the stable state at any moment in time. it comes handy e.g. in CI scripts that want to check out the latest ASDF release, etc...
I like this!
IMO a big win of having the major and minor number in the branch name is that it's a better experience for users. If it's a single `maintenance` branch then a git pull may wind up changing their version completely. If they have any local changes as well, things might get a bit hairy when `maintenance` changes minor versions as that wouldn't be a fast-forward update.
Additionally having a version independent `stable` identifier (tag or branch) is nice for the use cases described here.
For me, a "stable" tag/branch that keeps changing the contents isn't "stable". My 2 cents. I'm not an asdf dev, and only grab asdf when releases are done (or need to test some new things being introduced.)
-Eric
-- Ray